Today's Meet The Press seemed a little all over the map today with headlines at the top, then the round table discussion first, then the interview with Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio into a Seth Meyers (Head Writer for Saturday Night Live) interview. The program flowed jaggedly along, but tinkering is always good as the little wrinkles keep the program interesting and watchable. However, we recommend not trying to stuff too much into the single hour, and dig into more substance with the guests, which is what should have been addressed with the Florida Senator.
But to begin, Mayor Bloomberg started off by saying that there is a crisis of confidence, in which many companies are looking at what the government is doing, or not doing as the case may be, and saying, "What's going on?" However, the confidence that Mr. Bloomberg is talking comes from a business sector that is, yes in fact, wondering what the government is going to do about the deficit and debt and at the same time its confidence level is lowered when the government insists on regulations. What our finance sector needs to realize is that if regulations are put in place on derivatives, the market will steady and in the long run, more people will make more money, but the very very top will not make quite as much. And in terms of the latter group of individuals, the amounts become insignificant.
Mayor Bloomberg also illustrated the grand conundrum for the average American in that it's a good time to buy a house, but there are many stipulations and the most obvious one is job stability. There is none, and overall wages for the middle class are down, yet Congress has not address this. Furthermore, Mr. Bloomberg is against having the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the wealthiest one percent in the country, but over the past 25 years we've seen that "Trickle Down" economics hasn't worked. That house that Mr. Bloomberg refers to is a moving goal, moving farther and farther away from reality.
This brings us to the budget discussion, in which no one seems to know how to balance with too many outside forces [read: special interest groups] determined to see that nothing is done about it, and that's on both sides. But as the Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, admitted, as well as Senator Rubio, there a lot of deficit spending by Republicans as well as Democrats. Governor McDonnell explained that states have balanced budget amendments, which the federal government should have as well. However, if to balance it is how David Axelrod explained the way the Virginia Governor did, then what's the point. Mr. Axelrod explained that the Governor borrowed the money from pension plans, used Recovery Act money, and benefited from the cuts his predecessor made.
And though we at the column also feel that entitlement programs need to be reformed, we find it disingenuous on the part of Republican politicians to borrow money from the pension funds or ask people to pay into a system all their working lives and then turn around and say we're cutting back on the payments because we can't afford it. Talk about too big to fail. It's a bailout without labeling it as such because the two acts are not immediate to one another. And in the case of Governor McDonnell, the question is when will the money to the pension fund be paid back?
Mr. Axelrod and Governor McDonnell started to get into it a little bit and Mr. Gregory prompted cut them off. This is always a judgment call as to how long to let something like this go on, but both made a charge to the other and Mr. Gregory should have let the exchange to one more turn on either side before cutting off. However, this is Meet The Press so civility, we feel, is also tantamount to the debate.
The substance of Mr. Axelrod's questioning Mr. McDonnell is what we're looking for from Mr. Rubio, who said that the President needs to lead [on fiscal issues, which was the context of the discussion] because so far he has failed to do so. That sort of statement begs the question, in terms of whom? If the President does lead to enact his Democratic policies, without compromise, which Mr. Rubio equates to doing nothing in Washington then is he still leading?
Mr. Rubio also fashions himself an independent from the Tea Party Movement, but explained that 'we,' the Tea Party brought the subject of cutting spending to the table. One thing we'd like to say to Mr. Rubio if he wants to be taken seriously as a U.S. Senator as he aspires and that is to rid himself of the Rush Limbaugh speak. During the interview, he referred to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat' Party and used the term 'Obamacare' to describe the Affordable Health Care Act. Both are derogatory. Furthermore, he said that the only people who cut Medicare are the people who voted for 'Obamacare.' If that is the case then why aren't Republicans applauding the effort. The reason is because they want to privatize the system - that's the end goal and it's the end result of Mr. Ryan's plan for Medicare by issuing vouchers to buy insurance from private companies.
And though he would not outright endorse Congressman Paul Ryan's budget plan, but said he would vote for any plan that essentially does what Mr. Ryan's does. Hmmm... He did make a good point to say that the Democratic leadership in the Senate or the House hasn't put anything together. Where is the Democratic plan? Well, right now Senate Democrats are playing politics, taking a page from the Republicans are waiting for the other party to fall on its own sword, which the Republicans are doing with the Ryan plan. Whether you think it's a good plan or not, Mr. Ryan's plan does change Medicare as we know it... for everyone. Seventy percent of Americans do not want it changed, which should say at the very least, let's look someplace else first for cutting, perhaps the military and defense.
Also, Mr. Rubio referred to our potential default on loans by not raising the debt ceiling as 'technical,' following a recorded statement by Secretary Geithner calling it irresponsible not to raise it. 'Technical default' is still default and every individual knows that they would have to contemplate bankruptcy in this instance. So imagine this on a country-wide scale, a country the size of the United States. As we've asked before, why would we do this?
And then there's Donald Trump, which Mr. Rubio said he's serious because the press give him serious attention. Mr. Trump is how President Obama indirectly described him, a carnival barker. When Mr. Obama released his long form birth certificate, it was the latter day equivalent of having to show your papers to prove that you belong. It was a sad instant in American history, to which Mr. Trump declared that he was proud of himself for managing to force the disclosure. Mr. Trump is not even an official candidate and this is level to which he'll take a debate or tactic he'll use. Hopefully, the Presidential vetting process, otherwise known as primaries, will show Mr. Trump as what he really is, a disingenuous salesman, nothing more.
Mr. Axelrod would dignify Mr. Gregory's question of whether birtherism equates to racism and didn't answer it. We will. Yes, birtherism is a euphemism for racism, plan and simple. Why? Because all it does is perpetuate the notion that the President is 'different' or 'not one of us,' which is a clear example of intolerance.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
4.24.11: Spending and Taxation
The hype for today's program definitely centered around the joint interview with Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) with regard to the budget plan, but at the top of the program Mr. Gregory spoke with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was in Cairo, but had recently visited the rebel-controlled Libyan city of Benghazi. The conflict in Libya does have an effect on our economy and budget considerations, while also bringing a larger point to bear, which is overall defense spending.
For the status, Senator McCain said that the fight has the earmarks of a stalemate, but was glad to see that The United States is engaging the Predator drone into the fight. He also stated that The U.S. should step up its air power presence in the conflict. On the heels of that statement, he unequivocally said that ground troops are out of the question.
Basically what Mr. McCain outlined is the type of strategy/involvement as we had in the Balkans in the mid 1990's. Basically bombing Qaddafi into submission until the rebel can organize enough to overrun the regime. The obvious problem is that we don't know how many of these air attacks it will take for that to happen and how long this conflict will go on.
Additionally, the Senator advised that we help the rebels, giving them the frozen Qaddafi assets so that they have the ability to further arm themselves and relieve the strain on the civilian population, significantly adding that we need to 'take this guy out.' But again, how long and to what full extent will the U.S. be involved?
Another question of how long had to do with Iraq, which Mr. Gregory thoughtfully about which he asked Senator McCain. His answer to this and his suggestions about Libya should induce concern about our military policy and ultimately spending. He said that it is very important that we DO NOT leave Iraq completely. He continued on to say that the American people aren't very concerned about a long-term presence there, but would be if we were taking casualties.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need to reverse. The United States can no longer establish a 50-year/long-term type of presence in Iraq as we have done in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Italy, Spain, and Turkey to name a few. One could argue that we need these bases so that we can strategically be in place for any potential conflict or threat that involves The United States, but why do we need bases in Spain, Italy, and Germany? In this example, closing out the U.S. Military presence in two of these three countries would not significantly alter our strategic positioning and save us billions of dollars. Stay in South Korea because of a potential threat from the North, but pull out of Japan (if they want us to) or The Philippines. Why aren't these hard choices being made. The American public, as Mr. McCain said, wouldn't be overly concerned if we were not militarily in The Philippines. Our military spending is about $500 billion per year.
Instead, the hard choice remain here at home as to what to do with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which Senator Tom Coburn said have to be on the table for long-term fiscal responsibility. He also said that the 'gang of six' (6 Senators from both sides of the isle working on a budgetary compromise) hasn't even talked taxes increases.
However, Senator Kent Conrad said that they need to work both sides of the budgetary equation, cutting spending and increasing revenue through taxes, but that they shouldn't be raised on the middle class. Mr. Conrad did state that the gang of six will have their proposal out soon, lest they become irrelevant to the debate.
If the United States increased the tax rate for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans - basically letting the Bush Tax Cut expire and go back to Clinton-era levels at 39%, the revenue would be increased by approximately $700 billion. Couple that with say $100 billion in lowering military costs and you have close to $1 trillion in decreased spending. Or if we do as Senator Conrad said in that we should close the tax loopholes for companies off-shoring for tax purposes instead of having the tax rates expire, you'd get at least the same amount of savings, perhaps more. We could do those things first and then see where we are and go from there. Too practical, too rational, too.. (gulp) naive.
The Ryan plan, which David Brooks again said today, on the program, he liked because it asks the big questions like 'how much government do people want' is not a fair economic plan. This week, Mr. Ryan's own constituents questioned his plan in a town hall meeting that he called. Putting in place a voucher system for Medicare will change it fundamentally and will put a large burden (a burden that will keep growing) of the cost on the senior citizen. In the same budget plan, Mr. Ryan proposes a further cut in taxes for the top 2% of the wealthy.
So when Senator Coburn says that entitlement spending has to be on the table, so does defense spending and taxation. And significantly, Mr. Coburn disagreed with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that not raising the debt limit will not be catastrophic for the United States, because we will still be able to pay the interest on our bonds, is worrisome, but the one thing we can say about Senator Coburn, though we don't agree with him often, is that he is principled, unlike Congressman Paul Ryan. Senator Coburn has rebuffed his pledge (to not ever raise any type of taxes - corporate subsidies and all) to Grover Norquist - Chairman of the organization Americans for Tax Reform. However, on this instance of raising the debt limit, we strongly disagree with him. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to default on our debt for the first time in our history? No.
Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos said that both parties lose in this debate - Republicans for cutting popular programs and Democrats on their spending. He also noted that President Obama has been nothing but divisive in singling out the richest in this country. The latter is simply partisan as 72% of Americans favor raising taxes for the top 2%. As Ms. Dunn pointed out, the last election was about the American people wanting the Congress to work together, but that is not the Republican plan. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which Republicans is so far to the right that if the Democrats don't answer sensibly, clearly, and decisively, the compromise line will be that American will see Medicare and Social Security changed significantly, when it doesn't really have to be. And lost in all this as was pointed out through the Tweet Deck, where is the discussion about jobs. Congress hasn't done anything on jobs. Forget about gas prices, for the moment because if you don't have a job, you can't pay for gasoline no matter how low the cost.
Round Table: Columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book "The Social Animal," David Brooks; columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson; Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos; and former communications director for President Obama, Anita Dunn.
For the status, Senator McCain said that the fight has the earmarks of a stalemate, but was glad to see that The United States is engaging the Predator drone into the fight. He also stated that The U.S. should step up its air power presence in the conflict. On the heels of that statement, he unequivocally said that ground troops are out of the question.
Basically what Mr. McCain outlined is the type of strategy/involvement as we had in the Balkans in the mid 1990's. Basically bombing Qaddafi into submission until the rebel can organize enough to overrun the regime. The obvious problem is that we don't know how many of these air attacks it will take for that to happen and how long this conflict will go on.
Additionally, the Senator advised that we help the rebels, giving them the frozen Qaddafi assets so that they have the ability to further arm themselves and relieve the strain on the civilian population, significantly adding that we need to 'take this guy out.' But again, how long and to what full extent will the U.S. be involved?
Another question of how long had to do with Iraq, which Mr. Gregory thoughtfully about which he asked Senator McCain. His answer to this and his suggestions about Libya should induce concern about our military policy and ultimately spending. He said that it is very important that we DO NOT leave Iraq completely. He continued on to say that the American people aren't very concerned about a long-term presence there, but would be if we were taking casualties.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need to reverse. The United States can no longer establish a 50-year/long-term type of presence in Iraq as we have done in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Italy, Spain, and Turkey to name a few. One could argue that we need these bases so that we can strategically be in place for any potential conflict or threat that involves The United States, but why do we need bases in Spain, Italy, and Germany? In this example, closing out the U.S. Military presence in two of these three countries would not significantly alter our strategic positioning and save us billions of dollars. Stay in South Korea because of a potential threat from the North, but pull out of Japan (if they want us to) or The Philippines. Why aren't these hard choices being made. The American public, as Mr. McCain said, wouldn't be overly concerned if we were not militarily in The Philippines. Our military spending is about $500 billion per year.
Instead, the hard choice remain here at home as to what to do with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which Senator Tom Coburn said have to be on the table for long-term fiscal responsibility. He also said that the 'gang of six' (6 Senators from both sides of the isle working on a budgetary compromise) hasn't even talked taxes increases.
However, Senator Kent Conrad said that they need to work both sides of the budgetary equation, cutting spending and increasing revenue through taxes, but that they shouldn't be raised on the middle class. Mr. Conrad did state that the gang of six will have their proposal out soon, lest they become irrelevant to the debate.
If the United States increased the tax rate for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans - basically letting the Bush Tax Cut expire and go back to Clinton-era levels at 39%, the revenue would be increased by approximately $700 billion. Couple that with say $100 billion in lowering military costs and you have close to $1 trillion in decreased spending. Or if we do as Senator Conrad said in that we should close the tax loopholes for companies off-shoring for tax purposes instead of having the tax rates expire, you'd get at least the same amount of savings, perhaps more. We could do those things first and then see where we are and go from there. Too practical, too rational, too.. (gulp) naive.
The Ryan plan, which David Brooks again said today, on the program, he liked because it asks the big questions like 'how much government do people want' is not a fair economic plan. This week, Mr. Ryan's own constituents questioned his plan in a town hall meeting that he called. Putting in place a voucher system for Medicare will change it fundamentally and will put a large burden (a burden that will keep growing) of the cost on the senior citizen. In the same budget plan, Mr. Ryan proposes a further cut in taxes for the top 2% of the wealthy.
So when Senator Coburn says that entitlement spending has to be on the table, so does defense spending and taxation. And significantly, Mr. Coburn disagreed with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that not raising the debt limit will not be catastrophic for the United States, because we will still be able to pay the interest on our bonds, is worrisome, but the one thing we can say about Senator Coburn, though we don't agree with him often, is that he is principled, unlike Congressman Paul Ryan. Senator Coburn has rebuffed his pledge (to not ever raise any type of taxes - corporate subsidies and all) to Grover Norquist - Chairman of the organization Americans for Tax Reform. However, on this instance of raising the debt limit, we strongly disagree with him. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to default on our debt for the first time in our history? No.
Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos said that both parties lose in this debate - Republicans for cutting popular programs and Democrats on their spending. He also noted that President Obama has been nothing but divisive in singling out the richest in this country. The latter is simply partisan as 72% of Americans favor raising taxes for the top 2%. As Ms. Dunn pointed out, the last election was about the American people wanting the Congress to work together, but that is not the Republican plan. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which Republicans is so far to the right that if the Democrats don't answer sensibly, clearly, and decisively, the compromise line will be that American will see Medicare and Social Security changed significantly, when it doesn't really have to be. And lost in all this as was pointed out through the Tweet Deck, where is the discussion about jobs. Congress hasn't done anything on jobs. Forget about gas prices, for the moment because if you don't have a job, you can't pay for gasoline no matter how low the cost.
Round Table: Columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book "The Social Animal," David Brooks; columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson; Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos; and former communications director for President Obama, Anita Dunn.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
4.23.11: Taking a Stand
In anticipation of hosting a few members of the budget committee, Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), let's briefly catch up on last week's Meet The Press, the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner interview.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
4.10.11: The Safety Net Ain't Safe
The reason why it's so easy to become frustrated with the Administration is because when the President's senior advisor, David Plouffe, goes on Meet The Press and says that "trust was built between the Speaker (John Boehner) and the President" through this last budget process, you wonder what reality they are living in. Is Mr. Plouffe saying that to lower the heat between the two sides? To reassure the American people that the government works? Or is he just not being forthright and insulting our intelligence? One has to wonder.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
4.3.11: Actions and Their Consequences
Why can't we be counted on to do the responsible thing? Fundamentalists in this country are acting irresponsibly and this week's violence in Afghanistan, the killing of 7 foreign workers, due to the Koran burning by the Christian Pastor Terry Jones in Florida is the latest example. Some months ago, when this was being debated in the press and Mr. Jones received international notoriety, we all knew the consequences of such actions. Then he went and did it anyway. Mr. Jones knew what the right thing to do was, but decided against it. What's inexplicable is how a man of God could act without empathy, without tolerance, and without compassion for other people.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), today's first guest, understated these actions calling them 'irresponsible conduct.' However, where he put his emphasis was on the other irresponsible actions going on in Congress with the budget negotiations. Mr. Durbin, as most of us do, understands the difficult position that House Speaker Boehner is in with the Tea Party Republican caucus. He has to placate them while trying to get some deal done so the government doesn't shutdown, which would be like sticking a sharp needle in the collective arm of the American people. If the government shuts down, checks don't go out, which is bad politically - a serious understatement. But the fact is while we agree that the government needs to cut spending, we find it disingenuous that the individuals calling for this most loudly are also advocating reducing the taxes for the richest Americans.
We agree with Senator Durbin when he explained that House Republicans loss all credibility in the budget talks when on insisting on political riders in a budget bill. That's the politics of politics we guess, but some of what House Republicans actually want to cut is irresponsible. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion on climate change, you would have to agree that the Environmental Protection Agency, which Mr. Durbin specifically mentioned along with Planned Parenthood, is essential of us to have. The agency that makes sure our water is clean to drink and that the air doesn't become too toxic. Cutting out the EPA and/or Planned Parenthood and/or NPR does in fact go beyond the mandate of last November's election. And if because of these riders, the government shuts down, the blame would have to squarely be put on Republican House members.
Republican strategist Mike Murphy, on today's panel, described it as a big game of chicken, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans should take the compromise of $33 billion in cuts because as pointed out, it is for this year's budget. They haven't even begun to discuss next year's. Ugh. And as E.J. Dionne pointed out, the pressure is on John Boehner. This is the first real test of his leadership of the House Republican caucus. Can he bring them all together? We'll see soon enough.
The key statistic to keep in mind that such cuts would eliminate over 700,000 jobs, which goes against what the mandate was supposed to be for in the first place, nullifying the last 8 months of job gains. Mr. Gregory asked the panel about 'morning in America,' referring to the recovering economy, but how will that morning look with unemployment among the black community at a steady 15.5%? It's easy to gloss over when you focus on the national percentage, but what is the number where people, nationally, will take notice?
***
What we found every encouraging was the reasoned answers from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). You may not agree on everything we're doing in Libya but at least it seems like the most engaged individuals like Senator Durbin and Congressman Rogers are on the same page both saying that the United States should continue to maintain the no-fly zone over the country and that continued pressure on the Qadhafi regime is in the interest of the United States.
Congressman Rogers clearly stated that Democrats and Republicans should stand with the President on our actions taken in Libya. It's just refreshing to hear a politician call for unified support on an issue. And it is true that at this point, Qadhafi staying in power is not an option and though the rebel forces are weak and ill-equipped, the pressure on the regime has been effective as evidenced by all the high-office defections, namely of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa.
Throughout this Libyan crisis, President Obama's measured have been as appropriate as they can be. As Mr. Durbin said, the United States acted on the issuance of an international coalition consisting of the Arab League, the United Nations, and the European Community. And as explained by Congressman Rogers, in addition to dropping bombs, we've seized [frozen] over $60 billion of the regimes money. But no matter of intention of the actions, the consequences have to be accepted, and that's why you heard the President give a speech on energy this week.
Chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, said that $100 per barrel for oil is absorbable for the economy, but long term, it could be destructive. Destructive for whom is the question? Mike Murphy seemed to think that high oil prices in the long-term could be good in that it would force us to utilize other forms of energy to supplant the crude. Thinking off the cuff, we can only really think that it would be destructive for the speculators who drive the prices.
With that said, Mr. Yergin was right that this worry extends far beyond Libya. He mentioned that even though Yemen is a small oil producer, it shares a large border with Saudi Arabia, which could become destabilized at worst, or just an easy thruway the terrorists and jihadists at best. Without a doubt there will be attacks on the Saudi regime cast from Yemen, and it will be the consequences the Saudis will face for their actions in Bahrain.
One hundred per barrel of oil officially gets penciled into the 'new normals' column.
Panel: The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Republican strategist and columnist for TIME Magazine, Mike Murphy; columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Daniel Yergin.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), today's first guest, understated these actions calling them 'irresponsible conduct.' However, where he put his emphasis was on the other irresponsible actions going on in Congress with the budget negotiations. Mr. Durbin, as most of us do, understands the difficult position that House Speaker Boehner is in with the Tea Party Republican caucus. He has to placate them while trying to get some deal done so the government doesn't shutdown, which would be like sticking a sharp needle in the collective arm of the American people. If the government shuts down, checks don't go out, which is bad politically - a serious understatement. But the fact is while we agree that the government needs to cut spending, we find it disingenuous that the individuals calling for this most loudly are also advocating reducing the taxes for the richest Americans.
We agree with Senator Durbin when he explained that House Republicans loss all credibility in the budget talks when on insisting on political riders in a budget bill. That's the politics of politics we guess, but some of what House Republicans actually want to cut is irresponsible. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion on climate change, you would have to agree that the Environmental Protection Agency, which Mr. Durbin specifically mentioned along with Planned Parenthood, is essential of us to have. The agency that makes sure our water is clean to drink and that the air doesn't become too toxic. Cutting out the EPA and/or Planned Parenthood and/or NPR does in fact go beyond the mandate of last November's election. And if because of these riders, the government shuts down, the blame would have to squarely be put on Republican House members.
Republican strategist Mike Murphy, on today's panel, described it as a big game of chicken, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans should take the compromise of $33 billion in cuts because as pointed out, it is for this year's budget. They haven't even begun to discuss next year's. Ugh. And as E.J. Dionne pointed out, the pressure is on John Boehner. This is the first real test of his leadership of the House Republican caucus. Can he bring them all together? We'll see soon enough.
The key statistic to keep in mind that such cuts would eliminate over 700,000 jobs, which goes against what the mandate was supposed to be for in the first place, nullifying the last 8 months of job gains. Mr. Gregory asked the panel about 'morning in America,' referring to the recovering economy, but how will that morning look with unemployment among the black community at a steady 15.5%? It's easy to gloss over when you focus on the national percentage, but what is the number where people, nationally, will take notice?
***
What we found every encouraging was the reasoned answers from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). You may not agree on everything we're doing in Libya but at least it seems like the most engaged individuals like Senator Durbin and Congressman Rogers are on the same page both saying that the United States should continue to maintain the no-fly zone over the country and that continued pressure on the Qadhafi regime is in the interest of the United States.
Congressman Rogers clearly stated that Democrats and Republicans should stand with the President on our actions taken in Libya. It's just refreshing to hear a politician call for unified support on an issue. And it is true that at this point, Qadhafi staying in power is not an option and though the rebel forces are weak and ill-equipped, the pressure on the regime has been effective as evidenced by all the high-office defections, namely of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa.
Throughout this Libyan crisis, President Obama's measured have been as appropriate as they can be. As Mr. Durbin said, the United States acted on the issuance of an international coalition consisting of the Arab League, the United Nations, and the European Community. And as explained by Congressman Rogers, in addition to dropping bombs, we've seized [frozen] over $60 billion of the regimes money. But no matter of intention of the actions, the consequences have to be accepted, and that's why you heard the President give a speech on energy this week.
Chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, said that $100 per barrel for oil is absorbable for the economy, but long term, it could be destructive. Destructive for whom is the question? Mike Murphy seemed to think that high oil prices in the long-term could be good in that it would force us to utilize other forms of energy to supplant the crude. Thinking off the cuff, we can only really think that it would be destructive for the speculators who drive the prices.
With that said, Mr. Yergin was right that this worry extends far beyond Libya. He mentioned that even though Yemen is a small oil producer, it shares a large border with Saudi Arabia, which could become destabilized at worst, or just an easy thruway the terrorists and jihadists at best. Without a doubt there will be attacks on the Saudi regime cast from Yemen, and it will be the consequences the Saudis will face for their actions in Bahrain.
One hundred per barrel of oil officially gets penciled into the 'new normals' column.
Panel: The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Republican strategist and columnist for TIME Magazine, Mike Murphy; columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Daniel Yergin.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
3.31.2011: Attention Seniors (Something to Think About)
If you are a senior citizen in the United States, we think you'll find this very interesting. We've been noticing more and more in senior households a copy of AARP's magazine so we thought it important to highlight something. Also, we know that seniors have a very high voter turn out so we felt it important to add to your perspective with regard to how one party is treating the U.S. citizens who have indeed spent their lives working for this country.
This is from Roll Call, the United States Congressional Newspaper:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_103/AARP-Is-Next-on-GOP-Target-List-204487-1.html
To break some things down for you, here's the headline:
AARP Is Next on GOP Target List
(Next meaning after Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the Environmental Protection Agency)
Some key quotes:
"The Ways and Means panel [House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee ] will hold an oversight hearing Friday on AARP’s organizational structure and finances."
"AARP was instrumental in killing President George W. Bush’s proposal to create private retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform."
Now, imagine if part of your Social Security savings was tied into the market, and then it tanked like it did in 2008. You would have lost at least 35% of your total Social Security.
This is happening because AARP believes it is in the best interest of seniors to support the Affordable Healthcare Act, and endorsed it. Think about that, but also think about this. Because Republicans do not like the AARP now, they are investigating them to defund them and and then end the AARP. Imagine if you were in the supermarket and got into an argument with a man who turned out to be the town's District Attorney. And now because he doesn't like you due to the argument, he decides to investigate you. How would you like that because that's what's happening.
Yes, the AARP is powerful, because they are the strongest lobby for seniors citizens... who look out for you and your Social Security. Just saying.
This is from Roll Call, the United States Congressional Newspaper:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_103/AARP-Is-Next-on-GOP-Target-List-204487-1.html
To break some things down for you, here's the headline:
AARP Is Next on GOP Target List
(Next meaning after Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the Environmental Protection Agency)
Some key quotes:
"The Ways and Means panel [House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee ] will hold an oversight hearing Friday on AARP’s organizational structure and finances."
"AARP was instrumental in killing President George W. Bush’s proposal to create private retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform."
Now, imagine if part of your Social Security savings was tied into the market, and then it tanked like it did in 2008. You would have lost at least 35% of your total Social Security.
This is happening because AARP believes it is in the best interest of seniors to support the Affordable Healthcare Act, and endorsed it. Think about that, but also think about this. Because Republicans do not like the AARP now, they are investigating them to defund them and and then end the AARP. Imagine if you were in the supermarket and got into an argument with a man who turned out to be the town's District Attorney. And now because he doesn't like you due to the argument, he decides to investigate you. How would you like that because that's what's happening.
Yes, the AARP is powerful, because they are the strongest lobby for seniors citizens... who look out for you and your Social Security. Just saying.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
3.27.11: It's Secretary Clinton's Time
As Mr. Gregory said at the top of today's program, we're nine days into the established no-fly over Libya, but what is the plan, the end game if you will, that Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked about in his interview with the moderator?
That's still the big question that needs to be answered, but our actions were clearly articulated by Secretary of State Clinton, who appeared with Defense Secretary Gates at the top of the program. Even though Secretary Gates said that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, which then Mr. Gregory took out of context the rest of the program, he went on to explain that is in our interest to assist with the U.N. resolution and to help our allies. Then Mrs. Clinton further explained that in Afghanistan, NATO troops (French and English) are there with us and we need to join with them in the Libyan operation because it is in their vital interest.
With Mr. Lugar, David Gregory brought up the cost of this operation and where the funds would come from to support it. This is the Republican's opportunity to play politics with our international policy and as Savannah Guthrie pointed out later during the round table that the main grievance is the process by which the President went about the operation. Frankly, we find Republican budget objections without substance, because they are selective when it comes to who gets it. Without too much digression, the corporate tax cuts that Republican state governors are doling out, while making cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class is the essentially the same as to what is happening at the federal level. The funding is there, but the Republicans, inexplicably, can not be seen aligning with the President on any measure, including foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton, as she's apt to do, made another good point in that Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries going through their own revolutions. And here's where Libya is in the vital interest of the United States, to which the Madam Secretary alluded. Egypt is squarely in the United States vital security interest, and for that matter Israel's, and to have a mass slaughter where refugees would go pouring into that country would cause further destabilization in the region. Additionally, as the Secretary also mentioned, if the United States had stood by and did nothing, we would have been criticized that much more.
However, Tom Ricks, senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security, said it is sort of like 'give war a chance,' citing, extremely interestingly, Obama taking an Eisenhower type approach in that he should not get stuck in a conflict, but try and effect the outcome. But the anecdote Mr. Ricks described when rebels lined up to shake the hand of a downed American pilot and embraced him is very telling commentary on how President Obama, and, equally, Hillary Clinton are conducting American foreign policy in a more responsible manner, by world perceptions, than the Republicans could hope to do. And as Ted Koppel summarized, Republicans right now have the luxury and the wait and see what happens and then take a hard position.
Mr. Lugar did definitively say that we should not be involved in the Libyan civil war, and we would agree. That is a narrow slicing of a position - enable the rebels by bombing the dictator - is getting involved. But by not getting involved, the humanitarian would have been grave. Mr. Koppel reminded us of the 1982 protests in Syria where Assad killed approximately 80,000 people to suppress an uprising. Consensus would say that we can not allow that to happen again, especially now, with the African Union calling for change, the Arab League urging for this action, and with the aforementioned UN resolution. With this in mind, there is some insidiousness going go that we'll get to in a minute.
Savannah Guthrie called what happening in the Middle East the 'Arab Spring,' but Bob Woodward called this President Obama's '9/11.' Ms. Guthrie's terminology is hopeful, which is something we remain, but the realists we are here at the column would call this a cultural shift, the equivalent of a 9.0 earthquake. Mr. Woodward explained it as a huge management problem, the size and scope of 9/11, and factoring in the relief effort in Japan, and our own domestic troubles, it becomes much more than that. And again, to touch on our domestic troubles, Republican policy initiatives seem petty when set along aside what is going on in the world. Corporate tax cuts? Busting unions? Limiting women's rights? Cutting education? Going in the opposite direction on every one of those initiatives would actually strengthen our country and while the world outside of ours is experiencing seismic shifts, natural and man-made, it is what we need to do most right now.
So with Libya, it's day to day as Secretary Clinton described, and the President will explain it all to the country on Monday night. We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton has her hands all over the explanation. Mrs. Clinton has shown responsible leadership, the type in the air of our finest Secretaries of State, and we do not say that lightly. In simply hearing her and the Defense Secretary describe the scope of our responsibilities in the world, you realize the our domestic problems are quite solvable, don't you? And where's the responsible, reasonable leadership on that in the House of Representatives?
So we conclude that the United States' actions, though not desired, were responsible given the world consensus, and by no means should there be boots on the ground... unless those boots are special ops people or the CIA, which will be the case. However, we do like it when someone like Tom Ricks explains that there are tight restrictions on the military with close watch against 'mission creep,' which indeed connotes U.S. personnel in some aspect on the ground there.
Panel: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the BBC's Ted Koppel; senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security and author, Tom Ricks; and NBC News White House Correspondent, Savannah Guthrie.
That's still the big question that needs to be answered, but our actions were clearly articulated by Secretary of State Clinton, who appeared with Defense Secretary Gates at the top of the program. Even though Secretary Gates said that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, which then Mr. Gregory took out of context the rest of the program, he went on to explain that is in our interest to assist with the U.N. resolution and to help our allies. Then Mrs. Clinton further explained that in Afghanistan, NATO troops (French and English) are there with us and we need to join with them in the Libyan operation because it is in their vital interest.
With Mr. Lugar, David Gregory brought up the cost of this operation and where the funds would come from to support it. This is the Republican's opportunity to play politics with our international policy and as Savannah Guthrie pointed out later during the round table that the main grievance is the process by which the President went about the operation. Frankly, we find Republican budget objections without substance, because they are selective when it comes to who gets it. Without too much digression, the corporate tax cuts that Republican state governors are doling out, while making cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class is the essentially the same as to what is happening at the federal level. The funding is there, but the Republicans, inexplicably, can not be seen aligning with the President on any measure, including foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton, as she's apt to do, made another good point in that Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries going through their own revolutions. And here's where Libya is in the vital interest of the United States, to which the Madam Secretary alluded. Egypt is squarely in the United States vital security interest, and for that matter Israel's, and to have a mass slaughter where refugees would go pouring into that country would cause further destabilization in the region. Additionally, as the Secretary also mentioned, if the United States had stood by and did nothing, we would have been criticized that much more.
However, Tom Ricks, senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security, said it is sort of like 'give war a chance,' citing, extremely interestingly, Obama taking an Eisenhower type approach in that he should not get stuck in a conflict, but try and effect the outcome. But the anecdote Mr. Ricks described when rebels lined up to shake the hand of a downed American pilot and embraced him is very telling commentary on how President Obama, and, equally, Hillary Clinton are conducting American foreign policy in a more responsible manner, by world perceptions, than the Republicans could hope to do. And as Ted Koppel summarized, Republicans right now have the luxury and the wait and see what happens and then take a hard position.
Mr. Lugar did definitively say that we should not be involved in the Libyan civil war, and we would agree. That is a narrow slicing of a position - enable the rebels by bombing the dictator - is getting involved. But by not getting involved, the humanitarian would have been grave. Mr. Koppel reminded us of the 1982 protests in Syria where Assad killed approximately 80,000 people to suppress an uprising. Consensus would say that we can not allow that to happen again, especially now, with the African Union calling for change, the Arab League urging for this action, and with the aforementioned UN resolution. With this in mind, there is some insidiousness going go that we'll get to in a minute.
Savannah Guthrie called what happening in the Middle East the 'Arab Spring,' but Bob Woodward called this President Obama's '9/11.' Ms. Guthrie's terminology is hopeful, which is something we remain, but the realists we are here at the column would call this a cultural shift, the equivalent of a 9.0 earthquake. Mr. Woodward explained it as a huge management problem, the size and scope of 9/11, and factoring in the relief effort in Japan, and our own domestic troubles, it becomes much more than that. And again, to touch on our domestic troubles, Republican policy initiatives seem petty when set along aside what is going on in the world. Corporate tax cuts? Busting unions? Limiting women's rights? Cutting education? Going in the opposite direction on every one of those initiatives would actually strengthen our country and while the world outside of ours is experiencing seismic shifts, natural and man-made, it is what we need to do most right now.
So with Libya, it's day to day as Secretary Clinton described, and the President will explain it all to the country on Monday night. We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton has her hands all over the explanation. Mrs. Clinton has shown responsible leadership, the type in the air of our finest Secretaries of State, and we do not say that lightly. In simply hearing her and the Defense Secretary describe the scope of our responsibilities in the world, you realize the our domestic problems are quite solvable, don't you? And where's the responsible, reasonable leadership on that in the House of Representatives?
So we conclude that the United States' actions, though not desired, were responsible given the world consensus, and by no means should there be boots on the ground... unless those boots are special ops people or the CIA, which will be the case. However, we do like it when someone like Tom Ricks explains that there are tight restrictions on the military with close watch against 'mission creep,' which indeed connotes U.S. personnel in some aspect on the ground there.
Panel: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the BBC's Ted Koppel; senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security and author, Tom Ricks; and NBC News White House Correspondent, Savannah Guthrie.
Friday, March 25, 2011
3.25.11: Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Kadafi, Qadhafi... Moamer Khadafi
A variation of this title appeared on Boston.com so we should give credit where credit is due, but what we'd like to touch on is not just the different spellings of a despot's name, but what it represents. (We'll get to that in a moment.) And yes, we're writing this column late in the week, forgive us our indulgences for the timing of this post.
Much has happened since the Sunday Meet The Press interview with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but there are still some significant questions still lingering from said interview. Namely, what is our policy on Qadhafi? The Admiral outlined that the military mission is not to oust the dictator and that one of the outcomes of our actions is that Qadhafi stays in power. However, President Obama has said that U.S. policy is that Qadhafi must go.
And this these are the kinds of contradicitons that we entrap ourselves in when we are dealing with a dictator who represents as close to a Machiavellian ideal as you can have on the world stage. Depending on which spelling you assign to what phase of Qadhafi (we're being consistent in the post for the sake of sanity), you get a different play.
In 1986, President Reagan dropped 60 tons of bombs on Tripoli in response to a Libyan terror attack in a Berlin nightclub. In 1998, Pam Am Flight 103 goes down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a terrorist bombing larger believed to be the responsibility of Qadhafi. Later, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi is convcted of mass murder for the act. In 2004, the Bush Administration normalizes relations with the dictator as he vowed to give up in nuclear ambitions (now our concerns focus on the chemical weapons he may have). In August 2009, said bomber is released back to Libya on behalf of medical mercy. In September 2009, Qadhafi makes his first appearance at the U.N. and gives a 90 minute rambling diatribe about all his perceived enemies. In 2010, a Libyan official confirms that it was Qadhafi who personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing. In 2011, Qadhafi fires rockets on his own people. The various lives of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. There's your two-bit history.
So Operation Odyssey Dawn is another in a list of military conflicts we've had with him over the years so we understand that Qadhafi must go, but we have to completely stop giving him any rope. However, with this operation, there is no going back, no recognizing him as leader of Libya. The long term is that we'll have to use our resources to isolate him, and unfortunately the people of Libya, in a way that rivals North Korea. The extended term strategy is not clear at all that has to be addressed.
The other big issue is the double standard of what's going on in Bahrain, with the protesters there being fired upon by the Monarchy, and also the Saudi Army. When the United States has to not longer turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, it will be a liberating one. The Administration's response about our position with regard to stopping the violence in Bahrain is basically non-existent.
The Senatorial panel of John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levins (D-MI), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) all seemed measured in their responses, but Senator Kerry clarified that this is not a war with another Arab country. It's a debatable point based on what constitutes war these days, but what it does do is show support for the President, which Senator Levin showed as well even though he's being watchful for mission creep. For clarification, this is when ulterior military motives are indulged within the depth of another mission, something we certainly can not have in the case of Libya. Even Senator Sessions, who rightfully questioned what the endgame is for this action would be, was supportive of the President's actions. Where he is at time of this writing, we can only speculate.
In extricating ourselves from the front lines of these coalition strikes against Colonel Qadhafi and his military quickly, we're doing the right thing. Before anyone settles into a consistent line of thinking that we're at war with another Arab country, we need to get out of there. This doesn't mean that the President shouldn't explain what happened, what's going on, and what's coming down the line.
Panel: NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper. Plus insights on what the conflict could mean for the U.S. militarily and the president’s agenda from former CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.
Much has happened since the Sunday Meet The Press interview with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but there are still some significant questions still lingering from said interview. Namely, what is our policy on Qadhafi? The Admiral outlined that the military mission is not to oust the dictator and that one of the outcomes of our actions is that Qadhafi stays in power. However, President Obama has said that U.S. policy is that Qadhafi must go.
And this these are the kinds of contradicitons that we entrap ourselves in when we are dealing with a dictator who represents as close to a Machiavellian ideal as you can have on the world stage. Depending on which spelling you assign to what phase of Qadhafi (we're being consistent in the post for the sake of sanity), you get a different play.
In 1986, President Reagan dropped 60 tons of bombs on Tripoli in response to a Libyan terror attack in a Berlin nightclub. In 1998, Pam Am Flight 103 goes down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a terrorist bombing larger believed to be the responsibility of Qadhafi. Later, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi is convcted of mass murder for the act. In 2004, the Bush Administration normalizes relations with the dictator as he vowed to give up in nuclear ambitions (now our concerns focus on the chemical weapons he may have). In August 2009, said bomber is released back to Libya on behalf of medical mercy. In September 2009, Qadhafi makes his first appearance at the U.N. and gives a 90 minute rambling diatribe about all his perceived enemies. In 2010, a Libyan official confirms that it was Qadhafi who personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing. In 2011, Qadhafi fires rockets on his own people. The various lives of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. There's your two-bit history.
So Operation Odyssey Dawn is another in a list of military conflicts we've had with him over the years so we understand that Qadhafi must go, but we have to completely stop giving him any rope. However, with this operation, there is no going back, no recognizing him as leader of Libya. The long term is that we'll have to use our resources to isolate him, and unfortunately the people of Libya, in a way that rivals North Korea. The extended term strategy is not clear at all that has to be addressed.
The other big issue is the double standard of what's going on in Bahrain, with the protesters there being fired upon by the Monarchy, and also the Saudi Army. When the United States has to not longer turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, it will be a liberating one. The Administration's response about our position with regard to stopping the violence in Bahrain is basically non-existent.
The Senatorial panel of John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levins (D-MI), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) all seemed measured in their responses, but Senator Kerry clarified that this is not a war with another Arab country. It's a debatable point based on what constitutes war these days, but what it does do is show support for the President, which Senator Levin showed as well even though he's being watchful for mission creep. For clarification, this is when ulterior military motives are indulged within the depth of another mission, something we certainly can not have in the case of Libya. Even Senator Sessions, who rightfully questioned what the endgame is for this action would be, was supportive of the President's actions. Where he is at time of this writing, we can only speculate.
In extricating ourselves from the front lines of these coalition strikes against Colonel Qadhafi and his military quickly, we're doing the right thing. Before anyone settles into a consistent line of thinking that we're at war with another Arab country, we need to get out of there. This doesn't mean that the President shouldn't explain what happened, what's going on, and what's coming down the line.
Panel: NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper. Plus insights on what the conflict could mean for the U.S. militarily and the president’s agenda from former CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
3.13.11: How Would We Do? / Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN)
What we've been thinking about most since the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan is the resolve of its people. It is in the days to come, a year or two from now even when people in this country should be taking instruction from the Japanese people. And what do we mean by that? Well, if there is one thing we know about, it is the Japanese will to overcome a great disaster and recover strong than before. It just makes us wonder if the United States would be able to do the same. And we actually have our answer, it's no. Think about New Orleans and how 5 1/2 years later, there are still areas dilapidated and in disrepair. How about Ground Zero? It's been ten years and there is still no sign of a building.
The Japanese Ambassador for the United States showed that resolve with great grace on today's program, thanking the United States Military for its rescue and relief efforts. It's unfortunate that it is only a massive natural disaster that shines a positive light on the American military in other countries. Accompanying the military are nuclear experts because of concern that there could be a meltdown to the reactor core, something for which the Japanese have prepared but you can never know until something happens.
And to that point, Marvin Fertel, President of our Nuclear Energy Institute, said that post-9/11, we have put in safe guards at our nuclear plants in case of something unfortunate. It's good to know that we have taken these steps with our reactors, but it would be reassuring to know if we've redoubled those efforts. There are mentions constantly in the news about the strict building codes and safety regulations in Japan that probably prevented even more fatalities, and it makes us wonder about what we're thinking in this country where we (Republican politicians) want to ease regulations to make it better for business. But making everything better for business isn't always better. Making a little less money so that we're all safer isn't really considered in this country and it shows where our priorities are, and frankly, where we're headed.
It was this point that Chuck Todd, weakly filling in for David Gregory this week, posed to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who was reminded of his advocacy for expanding nuclear power. Mr. Schumer reiterated the obvious fact that The United States needs to free itself from foreign oil dependency, something we hear a lot of from both sides of the isle. The Republicans want more drilling here, which doesn't address our addiction to the fuel, and the Democrats 'greener' suggestions don't yield enough energy to make it cost efficient. It's this sort of problem and all the politics that go with it that we feel can not be solved by today's American political leaders. The Japanese would make it there mission to solve this problem. You see the difference here?
In the matter of the budget, is a metaphoric tsunami coming in this country? It is a hopeful sign when Mr. Schumer pointed out that a number of riders (non-budgetary related items like same-sex marriage amendments that have nothing to do with the budget) were taken out of the budget to raise its chances of being passed. This is good news but how many continuing resolutions to keep the government going are they going to pass? With all the energy put into this, other important matters will fall out of focus.
And speaking of non-budgetary issues, Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) wanted a truce on such things, but conservative Republicans won't have it. To defend his position, Mr. Daniels asked, "Are you more committed to results or rhetoric?" Right now, it's the cultural warriors in the Republican party who are exerting the most influence there. Our cultural wars revolve around religion and frankly, there's no place for it in our governing system according to the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, religious conservatives have been the ones, as of late, who have been throwing this document in everyone's faces, especially the Tea Party Republicans.
What we've seen from them is that their compromise is 'their way or nothing,' as in Wisconsin. Govern Daniels mentioned that the government shouldn't go after collective bargaining, but also said that public employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. We would respectfully disagree for among other reasons, this one: Collective bargaining in the public sector is necessary because it is an essential vehicle in which the people of this country have leverage to stand up against it's government at a time when an election is not pending. Rights are a continual process that has to been diligently looked after and not only in election years. Taking away public sector collective bargaining eliminates a necessary check in the check-and-balance system, on government to safeguard against abuse.
And why didn't they have that discuss today on Meet The Press? Because the show is continually, stupidly obsessed with Presidential politics. Instead of delving more in depth to what is happening in Wisconsin and how these same issues are playing out in the Governor's state of Indiana, Mr. Todd needed to ask him about a potential run for President, to which he said he agreed to consider it. Remember that Mr. Daniels used to be the budget director for George W. Bush so he talks a good fiscal game, but when Mr. Todd asked him about Medicare Part D and that it shouldn't have been enacted because we couldn't pay for it was that it cost a lot less than most people thought. That was his answer? Remember that the budget director is also responsible for keeping two wars off the books.
And when Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Daniels on the wisdom that shrinking the government will produce jobs, which has not been the result, he stated that that is what a catastrophic recession will do - stagger job growth. It was caused by the policies of the Administration, for which he worked.
It's difficult, and unlikely, to advise that we would choose Governor Mitch Daniels for President because of the fact that his fiscal rhetoric doesn't at all match with the results he's produced as a part of the Bush Administration or as Governor of Indiana. However, most people don't know or realize these facts, which brings us to a point that NPR's Michelle Norris made during the roundtable with regard to the potential Republican nominees not having declared yet as it is getting late comparatively to the last election.
She pointed out that in the last election, people had a long time to vet the candidates, especially Barack Obama, and that this time around people won't have as much time. She missed the real insight to her own point, which is that the Republican nominees do not want to be vetted for any period of time. They know that the less the people know, the better it is for a successful election. The more people find out - for example seniors who would consider voting for Mr. Daniels because he's conservative but may not realize that he's the one whose causing their hardship with prescription drugs - the less likely one would be to get the vote. For the Republicans in this case, less is more.
***
Two last things we'd like to touch on. One, David Broder was never our favorite on Meet The Press, but 401 times on the program does make him The Dean. And more times than not, he was the voice of rationality in the face of stupidity [example: rebutting Robert Novak].
Secondly, NPR and public funding. As Ms. Norris defended, it about more than just NPR, PBS and Sesame Street and all the other information services where in some areas of the country it is the only source of information. Yes, those areas she's referring to are... you guessed it... the poorest areas of the country. James O'Keefe got his 'gotcha' moment, and it in the end it means nothing because it was only destructive, not constructive in any way, which relegates him to being part of the problem and not the solution. NPR should continue to be funded.
The Japanese Ambassador for the United States showed that resolve with great grace on today's program, thanking the United States Military for its rescue and relief efforts. It's unfortunate that it is only a massive natural disaster that shines a positive light on the American military in other countries. Accompanying the military are nuclear experts because of concern that there could be a meltdown to the reactor core, something for which the Japanese have prepared but you can never know until something happens.
And to that point, Marvin Fertel, President of our Nuclear Energy Institute, said that post-9/11, we have put in safe guards at our nuclear plants in case of something unfortunate. It's good to know that we have taken these steps with our reactors, but it would be reassuring to know if we've redoubled those efforts. There are mentions constantly in the news about the strict building codes and safety regulations in Japan that probably prevented even more fatalities, and it makes us wonder about what we're thinking in this country where we (Republican politicians) want to ease regulations to make it better for business. But making everything better for business isn't always better. Making a little less money so that we're all safer isn't really considered in this country and it shows where our priorities are, and frankly, where we're headed.
It was this point that Chuck Todd, weakly filling in for David Gregory this week, posed to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who was reminded of his advocacy for expanding nuclear power. Mr. Schumer reiterated the obvious fact that The United States needs to free itself from foreign oil dependency, something we hear a lot of from both sides of the isle. The Republicans want more drilling here, which doesn't address our addiction to the fuel, and the Democrats 'greener' suggestions don't yield enough energy to make it cost efficient. It's this sort of problem and all the politics that go with it that we feel can not be solved by today's American political leaders. The Japanese would make it there mission to solve this problem. You see the difference here?
In the matter of the budget, is a metaphoric tsunami coming in this country? It is a hopeful sign when Mr. Schumer pointed out that a number of riders (non-budgetary related items like same-sex marriage amendments that have nothing to do with the budget) were taken out of the budget to raise its chances of being passed. This is good news but how many continuing resolutions to keep the government going are they going to pass? With all the energy put into this, other important matters will fall out of focus.
And speaking of non-budgetary issues, Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) wanted a truce on such things, but conservative Republicans won't have it. To defend his position, Mr. Daniels asked, "Are you more committed to results or rhetoric?" Right now, it's the cultural warriors in the Republican party who are exerting the most influence there. Our cultural wars revolve around religion and frankly, there's no place for it in our governing system according to the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, religious conservatives have been the ones, as of late, who have been throwing this document in everyone's faces, especially the Tea Party Republicans.
What we've seen from them is that their compromise is 'their way or nothing,' as in Wisconsin. Govern Daniels mentioned that the government shouldn't go after collective bargaining, but also said that public employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. We would respectfully disagree for among other reasons, this one: Collective bargaining in the public sector is necessary because it is an essential vehicle in which the people of this country have leverage to stand up against it's government at a time when an election is not pending. Rights are a continual process that has to been diligently looked after and not only in election years. Taking away public sector collective bargaining eliminates a necessary check in the check-and-balance system, on government to safeguard against abuse.
And why didn't they have that discuss today on Meet The Press? Because the show is continually, stupidly obsessed with Presidential politics. Instead of delving more in depth to what is happening in Wisconsin and how these same issues are playing out in the Governor's state of Indiana, Mr. Todd needed to ask him about a potential run for President, to which he said he agreed to consider it. Remember that Mr. Daniels used to be the budget director for George W. Bush so he talks a good fiscal game, but when Mr. Todd asked him about Medicare Part D and that it shouldn't have been enacted because we couldn't pay for it was that it cost a lot less than most people thought. That was his answer? Remember that the budget director is also responsible for keeping two wars off the books.
And when Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Daniels on the wisdom that shrinking the government will produce jobs, which has not been the result, he stated that that is what a catastrophic recession will do - stagger job growth. It was caused by the policies of the Administration, for which he worked.
It's difficult, and unlikely, to advise that we would choose Governor Mitch Daniels for President because of the fact that his fiscal rhetoric doesn't at all match with the results he's produced as a part of the Bush Administration or as Governor of Indiana. However, most people don't know or realize these facts, which brings us to a point that NPR's Michelle Norris made during the roundtable with regard to the potential Republican nominees not having declared yet as it is getting late comparatively to the last election.
She pointed out that in the last election, people had a long time to vet the candidates, especially Barack Obama, and that this time around people won't have as much time. She missed the real insight to her own point, which is that the Republican nominees do not want to be vetted for any period of time. They know that the less the people know, the better it is for a successful election. The more people find out - for example seniors who would consider voting for Mr. Daniels because he's conservative but may not realize that he's the one whose causing their hardship with prescription drugs - the less likely one would be to get the vote. For the Republicans in this case, less is more.
***
Two last things we'd like to touch on. One, David Broder was never our favorite on Meet The Press, but 401 times on the program does make him The Dean. And more times than not, he was the voice of rationality in the face of stupidity [example: rebutting Robert Novak].
Secondly, NPR and public funding. As Ms. Norris defended, it about more than just NPR, PBS and Sesame Street and all the other information services where in some areas of the country it is the only source of information. Yes, those areas she's referring to are... you guessed it... the poorest areas of the country. James O'Keefe got his 'gotcha' moment, and it in the end it means nothing because it was only destructive, not constructive in any way, which relegates him to being part of the problem and not the solution. NPR should continue to be funded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)